East Missoula residents form Save East Missoula nonprofit and press lawsuit over Aspire subdivision, dispute city place‑typing

East Missoula residents told the Community Council on April 14 that they have formalized legal and advocacy efforts against city actions around the Aspire Subdivision and related land‑use decisions.

Lee, representing community plaintiffs, said the group’s suit over decisions made on Aug. 26, 2024, remains active. He said several counts were dismissed but that the plaintiffs requested the court certify those dismissals. “He has signed the certification paperwork that we wanted that we requested of him,” Lee said, describing what he called a positive development in the case. Lee added that the city has filed a Rule 60 motion—invoking Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which allows courts to relieve a party from final judgments for mistakes or clerical errors—and that the plaintiffs had a deadline to respond to the city’s filing.

Andrew, who is organizing under the name Save East Missoula, said the group has hired a Helena law firm (identified by Andrew as MSWG) to manage legal strategy. He said the group formed a Montana nonprofit (Safe East Missoula) with five directors, obtained 501(c)(3) status, and has begun fundraising. “Today, we’ve received $1,570 in the donations towards a $20,000 goal,” Andrew said, and he explained donors will receive tax‑receipt documentation for gifts over $250. Andrew also described outreach materials—flyers and yard signs—and offered an address and contact information for donors and volunteers.

Both Lee and Andrew told the council that the city’s February 2 place‑typing and zoning decisions for East Missoula are a separate but overlapping concern. They said the county’s 2045 comprehensive plan and county zoning continue to apply until individual parcels choose annexation, and that the city’s place‑typing (urban residential high for parts of East Missoula) led to the disputed approvals. Andrew said he planned to present public comment at upcoming city council hearings to highlight county materials he says were not considered during the city’s process.

The presenters also described procedural details: an initial complaint was filed March 3 and a first amended complaint on April 6; a summons had been prepared but not served on the city as of the meeting; and the parties were monitoring potential summary‑judgment and service timing. Andrew encouraged neighbors to watch the Save East Missoula Facebook group for updates and to contact him for yard signs or to arrange donations.

The council did not take formal action on the lawsuit at the meeting. Members asked clarifying questions about the relationship between the litigation and county planning processes and were advised that county zoning, not the city’s place‑typing, governs properties until annexation.

The next procedural steps described by the presenters were legal filings and planned public comment at a city council hearing; the presenters asked interested residents to monitor announcements and contact them for volunteer or donation opportunities.